[MrBodangles]

I've actually had this question for a while regarding the JWST and newly discovered distant galaxies being stated as 13+ billion years old — isn't our estimation of their age based on the distance the light has traveled (red shifted) from emission? If so, wouldn't that mean that the 13+ billion year old galaxy's would actually be much younger. e.g. the light could've been emitted 10 billion years ago, but 3 billion light years of additional space has grown between us since then.

My understanding is that this is dependent on hubble's law, and we do not know the exact rate of expansion now or in the past, but stating an object is 13+ billion years old without that knowledge seems... Unscientific.

[MattPalmer1086]

I believe cosmologists account for all of this. It takes about 13 billion years for space to expand enough to give the observed red shift. The distance between us is now greater than 13 billion light years.

Yes, there is uncertainty about the rate of expansion, with different techniques disagreeing. So none of this is fully settled. Which is very scientific!